More delays for ethics code changes

Updated 10:31 pm, Tuesday, January 22, 2013

STAMFORD -- Lingering questions over proposed changes to Stamford's ethics code forced city representatives to table the legislation for further discussion.

The Board of Representatives' Legislative and Rules Committee chairwoman, Eileen Heaphy, had hoped to hold a vote Tuesday night on whether to send the proposed ordinance before the full board for final approval. Concerns voiced at a public hearing, however, as well as questions raised by committee members stalled the long-delayed legislation.

A handful of Stamford residents participated in Tuesday's public hearing. Edward Leonard told committee members he would like the ethics code to include a schedule for legal fee reimbursement.

"Is it within a reasonable time frame?" Leonard said. "... I would suggest that it really should be specified."

Leonard's comments referred to an entirely new section in the ethics code proposal on legal expenses, which would require the city to reimburse employees and elected officials if the ethics complaints against them are dropped, dismissed or withdrawn. Workers or officials found to have violated the Code of Ethics would not be reimbursed, according to the proposed amendment.

Corporation Counsel Joseph Capalbo said payment timing for bills received by his office varies based on factors such as the department's budgetary constraints.

"I've seen (bills) paid in weeks and I've seen them paid in months," he said. "We really don't have any control over when that check gets cut. I don't know if you can put a time limit on it."

Two Stamford residents voiced concerns over a proposed confidentiality measure, which would give Ethics Board members the power to dismiss complaints that are leaked to the press before probable cause is determined. Heaphy said the mechanism would protect the privacy of defendants unless the Board of Ethics finds probable cause that someone violated the code -- at which point the case would be made public.

Stamford resident Joe Sargent, an attorney, questioned whether the confidentiality requirement would violate the complainant's right to free speech. Sargent represented former Board of Finance Chairman Joe Tarzia and city Rep. Sal Gabriele, R-16, who were accused of ethics violations in 2010. The complaints against the two men were later settled and withdrawn.

Capalbo said he does not believe the measure would violate constitutional protections.

"It's consistent with the state ordinance on ethics," Capalbo said. "What you're doing, I think, is pretty consistent with what the state does."

The committee dedicated the majority of its debate Tuesday to the definition of "interest." Stamford's ethics code already offers general guidelines for preventing conflicts of interest, but Sargent and city Rep. Mary Uva, R-1, said the code should more clearly define what constitutes a violation.

"One of my biggest concerns is the ambiguity and vagueness of the use of the word `interest,' " Sargent said. "The key to an ethics code I believe should be to allow people who want to serve the government to know exactly what a violation is so they can stop conduct before it goes too far."

Assistant Corporation Counsel Michael Toma said he would favor sticking with a broad definition of interest.

Uva said city employees and elected officials need a clear understanding of the "rules of the road."

"I understand flexibility but ... in the case of a code of ethics I think clarity for the people who are covered by it is a higher priority," she said. "I'm not sure the way we have it framed right now is clear."

Board of Ethics Chairwoman Cheryl Bader said ethics board members would appreciate greater guidance on the definition of interest than what the current ethics code provides.

The panel voted to continue discussion on the proposals at its next meeting, which Heaphy hopes to hold before the next Board of Representatives meeting in February.